Somehow, my great-grandfather (died in 1950) and my grandmother (born in 1917) were from the time period and yet managed to not have any of its ideas; but my grandmother did know that this was the exception and not the rule to people of her era. Her father would tell her that "God wouldn't have given women brains if he didn't intend for you to use them": basically, "you're just as smart as your brother, and that's not an accident, so you are going to study just as much as him and do just as much with your life." He taught her to change the tyre of her car (shhh it's almost doctor who season, I need to practice my British), sent her to university where she met the guy she ended up marrying (she got a degree as a dental hygienist, and he got one as a dentist, and then they worked in the same practice until she decided to leave)...and yet despite all that, my dad ended up regressing into having no respect for women, or at least, not caring how women around him were being treated, like me for example. Most of the toxic ideas of myself and abuse I got from my mom, he hated her guts so he hung around her as little as possible and didn't bother to intervene when she was berating me or teaching me toxic views of femininity or beating me or whatever, or when anyone else did either. Schizophrenia, man....horrible....horrible disease. I have a feeling that if it wasn't for his schizophrenia, he'd have been a pretty decent human being.
At times social norms can change anyone for better or worse. It is just horrible when these changes are forced on to those surround individuals
Now I'm more certain that the reason they are sexist is due to the time in which they were written but that contradicts what people say about Islam being for all times. Once I listen to those who are renowned scholars and they confirm what I think I already know, at least I can make my decision with a clear conscience. No one can tell me that I rushed to leave the religion without trying to find a way back.
Those are not scholars, those are theologians. Theologians explain God via a text; Bible, Quran. Torah. They explain the religions to the faithful. They explain the purpose of verses in relation to God and the believer. The text is treated a true link between God and us. A scholar explains a text but not as a direct link to God. Texts are treated as historical items thus references to it historical environment. The only time ideas from texts are references to the modern word is when cross-referencing theology. So slavery verses for a theologian have a divine purpose, laws, conduct, etc. Slavery verses for a scholar would cover the fact that slavery was a per-existing condition and its uses in society. Theologians will sugarcoat slavery while scholars will not. Scholars will point of the Arab slave trade is linked with the Quran. Theologians will avoid such a link if possible. There is an inherent bias from theologians as they believe in the very subject they have an expertise in. Scholars must remove or challenge their bias. Those that do not are "called out" by other scholars. For example a Evangelical scholar that embraces the idea of inerrancy as true has become a theologian. Likewise scholars that accept the belief that the Quran is Allah's word also has become a theologian.
Theologians teach what they preach. Scholars just teach. The above is the primary reason scholarship on religious texts is slow to change and so varied. The majority bring their beliefs into their work thus become theologians.
Topic: Blatant misogyny in Islam is what is making me question it.